Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomi Way of Life in the Mezquital Valley, Hidalgo, Mexico Patricia Fournier-Garcia, Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia Lourdes Mondragén, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia Abstract. During the colonial period, Indian republics were formed as were pri- vate holdings in the Otomi region of the Mezquital Valley. The indigenous popula- tion was deprived of fertile agricultural lands while ranchos and haciendas raised cattle, affecting the fragile semiarid environment of the region, This article ana- lyzes the economic strategies of the indigenous inhabitants of the valley with an ethnoarchaeological and historical perspective. Based on the historical evidence, this article studies the socioeconomic interactions among the Otomé Indians and the haciendas during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The impact of the indige- nous marginal survival strategies on the economic success of ranchos and haciendas in the Tula and Ixmiquilpan subregions is analyzed. The Mezquital Valley is part of the Central Mexican Highlands and covers an area of 7,206 square kilometers within the physiographic area of the neovolcanic axis of the central Mexican plateau (Figure 1). It includes the western part of the state of Hidalgo, the northern part of the state of Mexico, and a limited part of southwestern Queretaro (Fournier 1995; Lopez et al. 1988: 103). Currently the region is inhabited by the Otomi, an ethnic group whose members have been progressively marginalized eco- nomically since the beginning of the colonial period. This article explores the long-term political and economic processes that led to the present state of affairs, with particular attention to the formation of haciendas, ranchos, and other private Spanish holdings in the valley. We suggest that the eco- nomic situation of the Otomi is not simply a product of colonial exploi- tation. Instead, the Mezquital’s limiting ecological conditions, especially its infertile calcareous soils and scarcity of water, conditioned long-term patterns of interaction between the Otomi and the Spanish colonists. Ethnohistory 30:1 (winter 2003) Copyright © by the American Society for Ethnohistory.48 Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragén Figure 1. The Mezquital Valley. Drawing by Alfonso Torres.Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomi Way of Life 49 Perhaps more than in any other region of the Central Mexican High- lands, the environmental characteristics of the Mezquital Valley make it incumbent upon inhabitants to adopt complex strategies of natural resources use. This is certainly the case if the Mezquital Valley is compared to areas to the east, south, and west; only the neighboring region to the north shares its shallow soils, scarcity of permanent water sources, and low precipitation. Indeed, the Mezquital area is the archetype of a sterile and eroded region. Different studies have emphasized the precariousness of the environment, describing it as arid and infertile, “dispossessed” and inhos- pitable, and the heart of drought and hunger (Anderson et al. 1946; Benitez 1991: 123, 1333 Lanks 1938: 1843 Melville 1990: 25; Ortiz de Montellano 1990: 1113 Soustelle 1993: 26-27). The area, what may be one of the poor- est and most marginalized regions of Mexico, is a classic example of how humans can survive using unusual food sources (Johnson 1982: 315; Ortiz de Montellano 1990: 111). The environment of the region has conditioned not only the relations between people and their habitat; it has conditioned social development and the relations between local inhabitants and the state as well. Initial Spanish colonization of the valley was characterized by small ranchos and haciendas with limited productivity. Although the Otomi actively contested the alienation of their lands, they were gradually pushed into the more ecologically difficult areas of the valley, especially as popu- lation declined. Consequently, their economic activities became increas- ingly subsistence oriented. By the early nineteenth century, the pace of latifundio development increased, and indigenous land and water rights were usurped by Spanish-controlled municipal governments. Because the haciendas and ranchos raised livestock, however, they employed relatively few Indian laborers. The low ecological potential of the environment that had severely limited the success of the cattle estates also precluded the wholesale exploitation of Indian labor, resulting in a degree of cultural con- tinuity for the Otomi. During the eighteenth century, the most important territorial jurisdic- tions of the region included Tula, Ixmiquilpan, Tetepango, and Huicha- pan.' The colonial regime imposed the Reptiblicas de indios (Indian repub- lics), a system of local Indian government, in these jurisdictions to facilitate control and access to Indian labor while maintaining a separation between Indian villages and private Spanish holdings. Spanish landholders monopo- lized water sources, fertile agricultural lands, and the best grazing lands to the detriment of both the indigenous population and the fragile semiarid environment of the region. Thus the ostensibly “separate” Indian and Span- ish republics were linked competitively on an ecological basis beyond the50 Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragén obligation of Indian communities to furnish labor and taxes to the colo- nial regime. This article analyzes the economic strategies of the indigenous inhabitants of the valley using settlement pattern data within an ethno- archaeological and historical perspective. Based on the historical record, we address the processes of social, political, and economic interaction in the Mezquital Valley from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries. Indian Republics, Ranchers, and Hacienda Owners The Mezquital region has been inhabited by people of the Otomi or Haahnii ethnic group since at least a.p. 650 (Fournier 1998). This indige- nous group has been documented in many historical sources as having been hunter-gatherers living in a dispersed settlement pattern. In these docu- ments, the term /unter is used in a derogatory fashion, meaning people who were awkward or clumsy as well as lazy (Sahagiin 1989: 603). The archaeological evidence, however, indicates that the Otom( established per- manent settlements during the pre-Columbian period, based on a rainy- season agriculture, and sometimes even built water-control features. Com- munities still tended to be dispersed, however, in order to utilize the area’s limited natural resources (Fournier 1995; Fournier et al. 1996; Fournier and Vargas-Sanders in press). The manner of resource exploitation was appar- ently efficient enough to support a relatively large population, perhaps as many as half a million inhabitants (Fournier 1995: 413). At the end of the Late Postclassic, the region fell under the control of the Mexica Empire and was divided into a series of tributary provinces and independent states, including Hueypuchtla, Axocopan, Atotonilco, Tula, and Xilotepec (Hicks 1992: 6-8; Paso y Troncoso 1980: 27-29, 31). These provinces paid tribute to their lords in woven maguey (Agave spp.) fiber, feathered warrior costumes, shields, sandals, maize, beans, chia (sage, Sal- via bispanica), buautli (amaranth, Amaranthus bypocondriacus), lime, thick maguey honey, turkeys, and deer hides (Acufia 1985, 1986; Paso y Troncoso 1980: 27-29, 31). These products reflect a level of specialized production from the different provinces of the Mezquital Valley as well as an emphasis on rainy-season agriculture and the specialized use of maguey. During the colonial period, the territory of New Spain was divided into two contrasting sectors: the Spanish Republic (Republica de espa- fioles) and the Indian Republic (Republica de indios). This division reflects urban and rural differences as well as control over the geographic concen- tration of indigenous people, their economic exploitation, and the evangeli- zation of the indigenous population of the colony (Broda 1979: 75; Moreno Toscano 1976: 63). In the case of the Mezquital Valley, there are five iden-Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomi Way of Life st tifiable areas (Actopan, Ixmiquilpan, Tetepango-Hueypuchtla, Tula, and Xilotepec), which reflect to some degree the regional divisions of the tribu- tary provinces of the Late Postclassic period (Gerhard 1986). Under the socioeconomic and political controls of the encomienda (grant of the right to receive tribute and labor) and repartimiento (labor drafts) systems imposed after the Spanish conquest, the Otomi provided service and tribute to the Spanish similar to those that they rendered to the Mexica in the pre-Columbian period. Economic changes and the introduc- tion of European crops and livestock, such as wheat, goats, sheep, cattle, pigs, horses, and domestic birds, are reflected in tax assessments of the six- teenth century, like the Libro de las Tasaciones The production of both cotton and maguey fiber textiles was particularly important for the Otomi. In addition, there are references to ceramic production during the colonial period. Pottery was indispensable to daily life, but it also was linked funda- mentally to the Otomi specialization in maguey products, in which ceram- ics were used to extract and process fresh maguey sap. This liquid was used to ferment pulque and to make maguey honey, and at times it was sub- stituted for drinking water, which was scarce in this arid region (Fournier 1995). The production of textiles, the use of maguey, and the manufacture of ceramics remained the most important economic activities among the Otoni until recently (Fournier 1995; Parsons and Parsons 1990). Historical sources from different centuries document these activities. For example, in 1603 the natives of various communities in the jurisdiction of Tula twisted and spun maguey fiber obtained from their maguey fields.‘ According to a padrén (census) from Tepetitlan, by 1792 some men had developed the trade of weaving. In 1749, Indians in the town of Santa Maria del Pino pro- duced pots and pitchers for sale;* in 1823, the entire economically active population (adult Indian males) appears registered as potters.” The effects of the colonial forms of political, legal, ideological, and economic control deeply affected the way of life of the indigenous popu- lation of the Mezquital. The indigenous communities suffered drastic changes in their basic subsistence and production patterns as they were dispossessed of the most fertile lands of the region. Beginning in the six- teenth century, the Spanish Crown made mercedes (land grants) of mayo- razgos (entailed estates) to conquerors (conquistadores) or colonists and to some caciques (Indian rulers or nobles) of Tenochea ancestry (Fernandez de Reca 1961: 227-247, 271-284). Within the Indian republics, the num- ber of Spanish residents was limited to those individuals who were directly connected to governmental, religious, and economic organizations, such as encomiendas, mercedes, estancias (cattle ranchos), and mines (Mendizabal 1947: 109).52. Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragén In the early colonial period, the indigenous population of the Mez- quital Valley was large. Most of the region was part of the Franciscan prov- ince of Santo Evangelio, except for the northern areas that were part of the Augustinian province of Santisimo Nombre de Jestis. Chapantongo, part of the Agustinian realm, contained 3,200 subjects between 1560 and 1569 (Rubial 1989: 329). In the Franciscan province, Tula was one of the ecclesiastical headquarters with a population of around 12,500 Indian trib- ute payers in 1571 (Mendizabal 1947: 76; Rubial 1989: 329). In the seven- teenth century, there were fifteen Indian towns grouped into three sections in the jurisdiction of Tula (Santa Marfa del Pino, San Juan Michimaloya, La Asuncién de Xochitlan, San Andrés, Santa Ana, San Juan Bautista de Tezontepec, San Francisco Tlahualilpan, San Pedro Tlachcapan, La Asun- cién de Zacamolpan, La Natividad de Yllocan, San Lucas Huantela, San Miguel San Marcos Iztlatlali, San Lorenzo Quapachtli, and San Pedro Alpoyeca), as well as three old encomiendas (Nextlalpan, Tepetitlan, and Sayula), with a total of three thousand inhabitants. Of these, 636 were either Spanish, black, or mestizo (a person of mixed Spanish and indige- nous ancestry), and the remaining 2,364 people were Otomi natives (Vetan- curt 1971 [1698]: 64). Also in the jurisdiction of Tula were seven haciendas that raised cattle and grain. The number of haciendas in Chapantongo and Huichapan at this time has not been determined. Beginning in 1550 in Tepetitlan, jurisdiction of Tula, repartimientos and mercedes were made to Spanish colonists for raising livestock.' Decrees dating from 1544 and 1581 ordered that non-Indians could not live within the six hundred varas (one vara roughly equals one yard) of land granted to communities. Nevertheless, it was common for the communities to rent out lands to important institutions, as they did to the Convent of Jestis Maria.” During the sixteenth century, the jurisdictions of Tula and Chapan- tongo were among the first districts to attract large numbers of Spanish colonists, possibly due to the proximity of these areas to Mexico City, The Otomf response to this invasion was to begin raising small livestock (mainly sheep and goats) as a potential way to keep the Spanish colonists from taking the poorer quality lands and converting them into large estancias."” Sheep herding was important to the natives for raising the money needed to pay tribute obligations and for building and maintaining churches. This and other changes in land use had a great impact on the natives’ way of life. They were obligated to work in the repartimientos as laborers or contracted farmhands, either for the Spanish estancieros (owners of cattle ranchos) or for their own communities and caciques. Because of this, subsistence agri- culture as well as other economic activities were partially abandoned as the indigenous labor force was integrated into the new system of private property (Melville 1994; Simpson 1952: 24-25, 49).Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomi Way of Life 53 At the beginning of the seventeenth century, large estancias were formed that concentrated on livestock production (Quezada 1976: 195). The majority of these estancias were the private property of the Spanish or of the Indian elite, and some were as large as fifty thousand hectares." These estancias were the antecedents of the latifundios, either haciendas or ranchos, that increased in number after 1620 (Melville 1994: 156). After this time most of the indigenous people living in Indian communities mainly practiced rainy-season agriculture on communal lands (Archivo General de la Naci6n [hereafter GN], Tierras, vol. 1708, cuad. 1, f. 6-8 [1763]). Lands were sometimes usurped from the Indians both by Spanish settlers"? and by other nonindigenous people. In 1753, the natives of Tepet- itlin rented out some plots to a group of mulattos, who subsequently appropriated those lands. The authorities finally forced the mulattos to withdraw and to pay the rent they owed.'? According to records for 1806, some Indians (possibly caciques), who may have been better off economi- cally than other natives, leased ranchos composed of communal lands.'* In the Tula subregion, most of the population was indigenous. This situation prevailed during the formation of large latifundios of the eigh- teenth and nineteenth centuries, and it has continued until recently. At the very beginning of the colonial period, much cultivable land was depopu- lated due to the drastic population decline of the native peoples of New Spain. It was subsequently either acquired by the hacienda owners or retained by the communities, who were often forced to sell in order to pay off tribute debts (Gerhard 1986: 343).'* In the Tula area, this depopulation, or “absence of neighbors” as it is called, was the direct result of epidemics, emigration from the area, overexploitation of labor, general agricultural crisis, and the difficulties of fulfilling tribute obligations.'* Nevertheless, from the time that the republics and the congregaciones (resettlement of the indigenous people to achieve greater nucleation) were organized, the majority of the communities maintained more or less intact the areas the Crown assigned to them. In most cases, these were zones of thin and calcareous soils that were inadequate for cultivating grains.'” The Indians, however, kept access to water sources and springs, substan- tiated by the founding documents of their communities, such as one from Chapantongo from 1558, used by the Indians to fight for their rights against the hacendados from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. In many cases hacienda owners disputed these rights. One such dispute occurred in Teneria, over the invasion and use of the community’s fertile lands and water resources.'* At times the Otomi were forced to rent out their com- munal lands to Spanish colonists” and other non-Indian people for many years,” and on occasion they even had to sell them?! During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there were constant54 Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragon struggles among indigenous inhabitants, landowners, and tenants because the newcomers frequently invaded the natives’ lands, grazed their ani- mals,” destroyed houses,* stole from maguey fields, and hoarded limited water resources for themselves, their animals, and their crops.** Legal dis- putes also occurred among the Indians themselves, and among hacienda owners,” over the hoarding of scarce natural resources and livestock theft.’* These struggles began very soon after the conquest. For example, as early as between 1568 and 1591, the natives of Otlazpa, in the jurisdiction of Tepexi del Rio, to the south of Tula, complained about the abuses com- mitted by a Spanish estanciero who owned caballerias (a land grant of mod- erate size for agricultural use) and an estancia in the area.” Later, in 1716, there was a similar problem in the same community.” In another incident in 1748, the natives of Tepetitlin were accused of damaging an aqueduct that carried water to the pastures, animals, and people of the hacienda San Lorenzo Endo.* This hacienda, built in the seventeenth century, was one of the most extensive and important latifun- dios in the jurisdiction of Tula. The natives complained that they lacked water and that they had to travel half a league to the Sayula spring to obtain it. Because of this, a resolution was drawn up which established that from Friday to Monday night, the water must run at night from its source to the stream that fed the community. For the remaining four days of the week, the water was reserved for the hacienda. In another legal dispute documented in 1778, the indigenous inhabi- tants of Santa Maria del Pino allegedly invaded some highly calcareous lands belonging to the Hacienda Endo. The natives also obtained wood from a hill located inside the property of the hacienda but had to pay a fee for it In contrast, during the same year, the Indians of Tepetitlan rented some land to Spanish colonists, with the aim of covering their own expenses”? For 1792, a total of twelve haciendas, as well as eight ranchos and rancherias (small ranchos), were registered for the Tula region (Figure 2; Table 1),* the most extensive being the Hacienda Endo. It is important to mention that in 1794 there were twelve haciendas and ranchos in this juris- diction, while in Chapantongo there were three haciendas and five ranchos {Gerhard 1986: 344, 394). In the latter subregion, the main concentration of latifundios was found either in the southern zone or along the Tula River, where the best farming and grazing lands were located. This zone also had a secure water supply for building irrigation systems, which only the land- owners could afford to build. In 1806, the viceroyal authorities issued an ordinance dealing with the community property of the Indians in this jurisdiction.” It specified thatFigure 2. The Tula region in 1792. Source: AGN, Tierras, vol. 7, foja 298. 1. Santa Maria del Pino 2. Tepeytig 3. Tepetitlan 4. Endo 5- Mestlalpa 6. Joya 7. Joya chica 8. Santa Maria Nasto 9. Mestlalpa ro. Santa Ana rob. Michimaloya 11. Jiteje 12. San Francisco 13. Bojay 14. Xicuco r5. Condesa 16. San Antonio 17. Santa Maria Suchitlan 18. San Andrés 19. Cochico 20. Tula 2ob. San Lorenzo 21. Tultengo 22. San Pedro 23. Santa Maria Coajuzpa 24. Puerto del Rey 25. San Marcos 26. Ocote 27. Del Molino, Nostitlan 28. Acoculco 29. 30. 31. 32. 33+ 34 35+ 36. 37: 38. 39+ 40. 4i. 42. San Ildefonso San Lucas Santa Maria Ylucan Dengui Salto Caltengo Tepeji Potrero Santiago San Bernardino Santa Maria San Ignacio San José 3 lenguas San Buenaventura56 Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragén Table r. Towns, haciendas, and ranchos in the jurisdiction of Tula in 1792 Pueblos Haciendas Ranchos Santa Maria del Pino Endo Joya Chica Tepeytig Joya Xicuco Tepetitlan Bojay Condesa Nestlalpa Nestlalpa Puerto del Rey Santa Maria Nasto San Antonio Potrero Santa Ana Ocote San Bernardino Michimaloya Calrengo Acoculco Tultengo San Yona Xitejé San Pedro Salto San Andrés Dengui Tula Santa Maria San Marcos del Molino Santa Maria Coajuzpa Sta. Marfa Suchitlan San Ildefonso San Lucas Santa Maria Ylucan Tepeji Santiago San Ignacio San Josef San Buenaventura San Lorenzo Nositlan San Francisco. Source: aGN, Padrones, val. 7, fojas 296-208. the governmental representatives could at no time sell or dispose of these possessions and that it was within the power of the Otomi to rent out parts of their communal lands as ranchos, house lots, or fields, in whatever way they saw fit (Table 2). The main production activities that were carried out in communities like Santa Maria del Pino are well documented and consist mainly of rainy- season cultivation of maize and other seed crops on lands distributed to the indigenous inhabitants by the viceroyal authorities.** In 1806 in Tepexi del Rio, a fertile zone with an abundance of water as its name indicates, a section of terrain was reserved for small livestock along with some lands suitable for planting wheat, maize, fruits, and vegetables.”Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomi Way of Life 57 Table 2. Possessions of Indian communities in the jurisdiction of Tula Community Rented _Tuibunactes* Town Lands Lands Whole Half Tula I small ranch, 8 milpas 124 64 10 solares E] Salitrillo Santa Maria del Pino 600 varas 47 19 San Francisco 22 19 San Miguel Tecaxique 90 33 San Juan Michimaloya 1454 Santiago Tultengo 26 20 Santa Maria Ylucan 33 14 Los Reyes de Tepeitique 16 12 San Marcos Xicapoya 1 56 San Lucas 14 7 Miguel Nostitlan 13 16 San Lorenzo Xipacoya 3300«S Santa Maria Qualuspa 24 1 Pedro Alpuyeca 30-20 Santa Maria Axuchitlan 59 7 San Andrés Chaltepec 57 15 Santa Ana 20 20 Bartolomé Tepetitlan 20 solares 86 46 San Pedro Nextlapa 98 SI San Mateo 23 9 Santa Maria Tlaxilotepec 34 12 Tepexi del Rio 7 pieces of tierras 124-70 de labor, 4 solares San Ildefonso 82 37 Parcialidad de Otlaxpa 4 ranchos, 4 solares, 155 52 3 milpas San Ignacio Otlaxpa 53 «17 San Buenaventura 3 ranchos 81 26 San José 31004 Source: AGN, Indios, vol. 79, exp. 3, foja 49-67. “A whole tributary was an indigenous man between the ages of sixteen and forty who was masried or the head of a family; a single man or widower was a half tributary (Malvido and Cuenya 1993: 12).58 Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragén Indigenous Peoples and Hacienda Owners in Independent Mexico When Mexico emerged as an independent nation, actions by the new gov- ernment had a drastic impact on the organization of the Indian communi- ties. Throughout the entire colonial period, these communities had devel- oped cohesive social mechanisms based on communal land ownership and on the fulfillment of community obligations, including tribute. The politi- cal and administrative changes under the new system of town councils, in combination with the overall scarcity of land (Ortiz Peralta 1993: 159, 162), led to the privatization of all the territory of the Indian republics, which the hacienda owners then quickly used to their own advantage. In this manner, the latifundios gained more control in the Tula sub- region, leading to constant conflicts between the natives and the land- owners. These landowners often began to rent out grazing land to the Indian communities, for which the Otomi were forced to pay “pasture rental” (Archivo del Registro Civil de Tepetitlan [hereafter arct], Hidalgo, Nacimientos, vol. 1, fols. 57-62 [1858-1869]). Most of the communities were small, like Santa Maria del Pino. For example, in 1823 a total of 256 individuals were registered for this town, while Tepetitlan had 456 inhabitants in 1792." In the haciendas, the num- ber of permanent residents was very small because the farmhands and shepherds were seasonally employed and lived in nearby communities. The Hacienda Endo is a good example of this. There were a total of eleven resi- dents in 1869: one farmhand from Tepetitlan (possibly the foreman), one clerk, two helpers, one cowhand, and six day laborers.” Until recently, the common architectural style of the indigenous houses in the Mezquital region has been characterized by its simplicity and small size. Each house has a limited number of rooms, generally one or two. Construction materials were abundant in the region. Houses were built of materials such as rocks and maguey pencas (leaves), rocks and mud mortar with roofs of palm leaves or maguey pencas, or entirely of maguey pencas. The Indians raised small livestock, such as sheep and goats, but they mainly practiced rainy-season agriculture, cultivating maize as well as maguey in their plots. Most of their farmland was eroded and calcareous. To comple- ment this subsistence farming and herding, they worked as day laborers for other individuals.*° The property and possessions of the Indians were few and of little monetary value. For the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, there are records for land reserved for plant- ing maize and maguey valued between 1.50 and 28 pesos per plot. TheseHaciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomi Way of Life 59 covered extremely small areas and lacked water. Some merchants*’ or farmers acquired lands that were worth as much as 250 pesos in total, while day laborers and potters owned much less, In terms of the value of houses, the Indian huts tended to be worth barely two pesos.*? For the most part, the few products produced by the indigenous communities were consumed there, although some were occasionally marketed outside of the area. The ranchos and haciendas were more elaborate constructions than the native houses, with walls of stone or brick plastered with lime, which included doors, windows, and roofs of boards or beams. Although these were relatively small structures (Figure 3), they had multiple rooms with designated functions, such as storage, back room, kitchen, corral, chicken coop, stable, hayloft, granary, bedrooms, and living room. They also had special installations, such as ovens, washbasins, and coach houses, and they sometimes had gardens.*? Among the existing ruins of ranchos in the region, remains of aqueducts and dams for irrigation are common. At El Gavillero, in the vicinity of Chapantongo, a large-capacity granary was present, and this rancho also had a separate house for the administrator (Figure 4). The lands owned by the haciendas were classified according to their quality as first-, second-, and third-class irrigated land; first- and second- class rainy-season cultivated land; and pasture land. This was the case for the Hacienda Tlahuelilpan, which in 1881 covered 14,252 hectares (Feld- man and Mastache 1990: 476). In haciendas like Endo, wheat, maize, and maguey were cultivated, but the haciendas mainly specialized in breeding goats and sheep (ibid.; Wobeser 1983: 103-4). Their products were sold within the region as well as in the cities. The property and possessions of the haciendas were abundant, although not equal to those located in agri- cultural areas of high productivity. In Atitalaquia, for example, an inven- tory (which totaled 14,923 pesos in goods) was compiled in 1727, when the owner of a latifundio died (Wobeser 1983: 104). Among the rents collected in 1892 in Tepetitlan, the main sales were of pulque, sheep, calves, wheat flour, sea salt, pigs, chilies, barbacoa (baked sheep or goat meat), and maize.’ The majority of this merchandise was produced by haciendas in the region or by the indigenous communities.*° The haciendas probably also supplied the mining centers of the northern Mezquital Valley and Mexico City. Among the documents of 1859 it is recorded that the residents of San Mateo carried tomatoes by burro to sell in Mexico City, while the Hacienda Endo produced pulque for sale in the market of Tepetitlan.** According to oral records we have compiled, when the railroad from the Mezquital Valley to Mexico City was constructed60 Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragon Figure 3. Hacienda of Santa Maria Temalatitlan in 1773. Source: AGN, Civil, exp. r, vol. 2008, foja 57. 1. Store 8. Kneading room 15. Garden 2. Back room 9. Corral entrance 16, Oven 3. Living room ro. Corral 16b. Hayloft 4. Entrance 11. Washbasin 17. Granary 5. Entrance room 12. Coach house 18. Bedroom 6. Room 13. Chicken coop 19. Assistance room 7. Kitchen 14, Chicken corral 20. Living roomELEVATION ADMINISTRATOR'S HOUSE Figure 4. Ruins of El Gavillero. Drawing by Tatsuno Kazuya. Small structure: administrator’s house (inferred function) Elevation of the main house (facade or front) Round brick feature: threshing floor Long area of the big house: granary or barn Small room to the left of the big house: function unknown62 Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragon during the presidency of Porfirio Diaz, both landowners and Indians were able to make their products available to different areas of central Mexico. Final Considerations During the colonial period, the geopolitical structure of the viceroyalty that created the Indian republics in the Tula and Chapantongo subregions pre- vented the formation of large latifundios. Although small estates, ranchos, and haciendas were founded from the beginning, the Indians often rented or were forced to sell their parts of their communal lands. The haciendas in the Mezquital Valley were relatively poor in spite of covering large areas and having permanent water supplies. The exception- ally poor quality of the land in this semiarid region contributed to their low levels of productivity. The success of the haciendas depended on the construction of dams and the appropriation of water supplies, the best irri- gable lands, and the best grazing lands. It is important to mention that some haciendas belonging to the Jesuits or the New Spain nobility, like the Conde de Regla, generated vast incomes because they occupied lands in diverse and fertile environmental zones, in contrast to those located in the jurisdic- tion of Tula. In commercial terms, the region was relatively isolated with products primarily consumed locally, with only small amounts consumed in mining centers and in Mexico City. Therefore, viewed within the context of colonial and independent Mexico, the natives, ranchers, and hacendados of the Mezquital Valley may be considered economically marginal. Because these haciendas and ranchos dealt with small and, to a lesser extent, large livestock, resident laborers were few in number, in contrast to the cereal-producing latifundios. This is one reason why the indigenous populations preserved many of the traditional elements of pre-Columbian society. Economically, they continued practicing primarily rainy-season agriculture, traditional craft production, hunting, and gathering in their communal lands or neighboring woodlands.” They maintained a relative degree of independence as well as preserved a communal and cohesive social identity. In this manner, many of the essential elements were con- served in the Otomi way of life. The use of pulque allowed the Oromi to exist in communities without permanent water sources, although they had to confront the landowners for the rights to water their livestock and to look for springs within their lands or in surrounding areas. For this reason the herds of animals that belonged to the Indians were always small, and still are, a problem that today is compounded by the lack of pasture land, money to buy fodder, and constant droughts. The haciendas in the Tula and Chapantongo subregions were defi-Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomi Way of Life 63 nitely marginal to the rest of the latifundio development in New Spain and Mexico because they lacked the necessary means of production to become large commercial enterprises. The low quality of the majority of the lands, as well as the shortage of water in the semiarid environment, prevented the development of large-scale agriculture and the heavy exploitation of the indigenous labor force. In spite of the apparent absence of visible means of production in this region, however, the haciendas still had a certain amount of success. This success was equal to or surpassed the development attained by the pre-Hispanic populations in the Mezquital Valley, a region that is said to have inadequate natural resources and is considered the northern frontier of Mesoamerica, the land of agave: homeland of the Haahaii. Notes Archivo General de la Nacién (hereafter AGN), Padrones vol. 7, foja 296. Libro de las Tasaciones 1952: 88-93, 96-98, 205-7, 243-5, 267-70, 359-61, 493-5, 432-5, 480-1, 535-8, 604-5, 618-20, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia, Mexico City, Serie Hidalgo, Archivo Municipal de Ixmiquilpan, Miscelanea Diversa, foja 23. AGN, Tierras, vol. 2812, exp. 3, fojas 4orv-4r7V (1603). AGN, Padrones, vol. 7, fojas 339v-348v (1792). Archivo Parroquial de Tepetitlin (hereafter arr), Seccién Disciplinar: Serie Juridico-Eclesiastica, caja 8, folder 1 (1748). ArT, Secci6n Disciplinar, Serie Status Animarum, caja 7 (1823). AGN, Mercedes, vol. 3, exp. 302, foja 141 (1550); vol. 6, exp. 461, foja 210 (1563); vol. 13, foja 166v (1585); vol. 16, fojas 99v-100 (1590); vol. 37, fojas 78- 79 (1622). Archivo Histérico de la Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia (hereafter AHssA), Fondo Exconvento de Jestis Maria, Serie Tierras (1598). zo In 1589 the Jesuit hacienda of Santa Lucia, a large-scale enterprise of the Compaiiia de Jestis, which owned extensive areas within the present state of Hidalgo, received a livestock estancia near Chapantongo as a donation, but it never produced well due to the poor quality of the land (Konrad 1989: 67). Other documents note that in 1598, the Convent de Jestis Maria rented an estan- cia de ganado menor (for small livestock), La Vifia, in Chapantongo, with six thousand head of sheep (atissa, Fondo Exconvento de Jestis Maria, Serie Tie- rras [1598]). As Mendizabal (1947: 117-8) has noted, “the abuses committed by the Spanish settlers in the appropriation of land, and the damage it caused to the indigenous peoples... [as well as] the raising of [livestock] ... led to the illegal occupation of lands, much of which definitely belonged to the indigenous people, who felt obligated to defend the land they had sown, from this continuous invasion.” 12. AGN, Indios, vol. 10, exp. 97, foja 49v (1629). 13 AGN, Mercedes, vol. 78, fojas 36-37 (1753)- 14 AGN, Indios, vol. 79, exp. 3, foja 59 (1806). 1s Among the requests for the extension of the payment period by the tribute- paying Indians of Tepetitlan are those of 7 October 1762 (AGN, Indios, vol. 69, 8 wD DHA w ” I64 Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragén exp. 316, fojas 227v-228v [1762]), 18 April 1787 (AGN, Indios, vol. 69, exp. 363, foja 276 [1787]), and 20 February 1794 (AGN, Indios, vol. 69, exp. 301, fojas 208-209 [1794]). In all of these petitions, there is mention of the popula- tion decrease, caused by epidemics, harvest failure, deaths of animals, and the emigration of the population. AGN, Indios, vol. 69, exp. 301 (1794); exp. 316, fojas 227-228 (1762). Ina docu- ment from 9 May 1637 (AGN, Mercedes, vol. 40, fojas 149v-154v [1637]), the natives of Tepetitlan asked for permission to sell some rough land from com- munity property in order to pay tribute, The lands were sold for fifty pesos of common gold. AGN, Indios, vol. 79, exp. 3, fojas 49v-64v (1806); Tierras, vol. 1708, exp. 2, fojas 1-86 (1763). 18 AGN, Tierras, vol. 1501, exp. 7, fs. 2 (1778). 19 AGN, Indios, vol. 59, exp. 132, fojas 124v-125v (1759). 20 AGN, Mercedes, vol. 78, fojas 36-37 (1753). 25 AGN, Mercedes, vol. 63, fojas 59, 66 (1693). 22 AGN, Tierras, vol. 1467, exp. 3, foja 109 (1716-33); vol. 1478, exp. 4, foja 25 (1711-12); vol. 2320, exp. 6, foja 22 (1709-78); vol. 3035, exp. 8 (1701); AGN, Indios, vol. 43, exp. 91, fojas 135v-136v (1718); Archivo del Registro Civil de ‘Tepetitlin (hereafter arcr), Hidalgo, México, Nacimientos, vol. 1, fojas 57-62 (1858-69). 23 In 1736, caciques from Sayula, in the jurisdiction of Tetepango, started a suit against the Hacienda Endo for allegedly taking their land and water and for the destruction of their houses and ranchos (Notaria Publica No. 1, Lic. Raul Efren Sicilia Salgado, Tula de Allende, Hidalgo). 24 In r8ro, the tenant of a hacienda accused an Indian of stealing maguey plants and demanded restitution for the act (AGN, Criminal, vol. 53, exp. 15, fojas 162- 195 [1810]). 25 AGN, Tierras, vol. 3616, exp. 4, foja 105 (1837). 26 AGN, Tierras, vol. 1768, exp. 2, fojas 1-86 (1763). 27 AGN, Tierras, vol. 3570, exp. 3, foja 59 (1779-1821). 28 AGN, Criminal, vol. 53, exp. 3, fojas 35-37 (1810). 29 AGN, Tierras, vol. 3517, exp. rer., foja 30 (1568-91). 30 AGN, Indios, vol. 40, exp. 67, fojas 119—120 (1716). 31 AGN, Mercedes, vol. 75-76, exp. s/n, fojas 151-155v. (1748). 32 AGN, Tierras, vol. 1708, exp. 2, fs: 1-86 (763). 33 AGN, Indios, vol. 84, exp. 13, fojas 305-306 (1778). 34 AGN, Padrones, vol. 7, fojas 296-298 (1792). 35 AGN, Indios, vol. 79, exp. 3, fojas 49-67 (1806). This ordinance had the objec- tive of making the Indians “favored in their urgent necessities, maintaining for them an ample fund, which cannot be created unless the expenses of this and other communities are reformed, thereby complying with what is prevented by the fourteenth and sixteenth laws of the sixth book, fourth Title, of the Recopila- cién de Indias, and articles 31, 33, and 34 of the Royal Ordinance” (AGN, Indios, vol. 79, exp. 3, foja 52v [1806]). 36 The lands were distributed among the Indians “‘in small sections . . . , giving each family what is necessary in order that they work them to their benefit, and if some lands are left over after the distribution, these will be put up for rent in favor of the common good” (AGN, Indios, vol. 79, exp. 3, foja 52v [1806]). B u 0 43Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomi Way of Life 65 37 AGN, Indios, vol. 79, exp. 3, foja 57v (1806). 38 apt, Seccién Disciplinar, Serie Status Animarum, caja 7, 1823; AGN, Padrones, vol. 7, fojas 339v-348v (1792). 39 Archivo Municipal de Tepetitlan (hereafter amr), Hidalgo, México Indepen- diente, Indiferente General, caja 1 (1869). 40 AMT, México Independiente, Recaudacién de Rentas, caja 1, folders 6, 9, and x1 (1887). 41 In 1900, there was a property owner documented among the Indians of Santa Maria del Pino who owned a market stall worth 720 pesos of “capital from annual sales indicated by the exactor (of tribute), or by the evaluation commit- tee” (amt, México Independiente, Recaudacién de Rentas, caja s/n, leg. 1-50 [1900-27]). 42. AMT, México Independiente, Recaudacién de Rentas, caja 1, folder 6, fojas 90, 226; caja s/n, leg. 1-50 (1900-27). 43 AGN, Civil, vol. 2008, exp. 1, fojas 57, 58 (1773). Also, Wobeser 1983: 103. 44 AMT, México Independiente, Indiferente General, caja r, f. s/n (1892). 45 A lack of maize during the time of the revolution of 1910 is recorded among the oral historical records of the community of Santa Marfa del Pino. This was due to the sale of grain by the haciendas to the Indians, a practice that ceased at the initiation of be armed conflict (Fournier 1995). 46 axct, Nacimientos, vol. 1 (1858-69). 47 Among the facts remembered in the oral historical records from Santa Maria del Pino, the potters of the community tell that barrel cactus and pigweed were collected for making tortillas: “They took with them the things needed for dig- ging, and they removed the spines, they returned and boiled it with some rock salt, then ground it together with some nixtamal (cooked maize), stirred it, and made the tortilla. This was all that there was to eat . . . they brought the pig- weed . . . gathered it together, and when they arrived, they removed the leaf, boiled it .. . pressed and ground it, and mixed it with the batter.” References Acuiia, René, ed. 1985 Relaciones geograficas del siglo XVI: México. Tomo I. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México. 1986 Relaciones geograficas del siglo XVI: México. Tomo tercero. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Auténoma de México. Anderson, Richmond K., Jose Calvo, Gloria Serrano, and George C. Payne 1946 A Study of the Nutritional Status and Food Habits of Otomi Indians in the Mezquital Valley of Mexico. American Journal of Public Health 36: 883-903. Benitez, Fernando 199K El libro de la infamia. In Los indios de México. Vol. 4, pp. 1-293. Mexico City: Editorial Era. Broda, Johanna 1979 Las comunidades indigenas y las formas de extraccion del excedente: Epoca prehispanica y colonial. In Ensayos sobre el desarrollo econ6-66 Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragon mico de México y América Latina (1500-1975). Enrique Florescano, ed. Pp. 54~92. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Econémica. Feldman, Lawrence, and A. Guadalupe Mastache 1990 Indice de documentos sobre el centro de México y cartografia antigua del Area de Tula. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia ¢ Historia. Fernandez de Reca, Guillermo S. 1961 — Cacicazgos y nobiliario indigena de la Nueva Espana. Biblioteca Nacional de México 5. Instituto Bibliografico Mexicano. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Auténoma de México. Fournier, Patricia 1995 Etnoarqueologia ceramica Otomi: Maguey, pulque y alfareria entre los ‘Hiahaii del Valle del Mezquital. Ph.D. diss., Universidad Nacional Auténoma de México. 1998 Simbolismo, modo de vida y etnicidad en arqueologia. Paper presented at the II Coloquio de Arqueologia, Mexico City, 2-5 March. Fournier, Patricia, Gerardo Jiménez, and Juan Cervantes 1996 Proyecto Distrito Alfarero del Valle del Mezquital: Informe técnico de Ja primera temporada de trabajos de campo. Manuscript in the Archivo de la Coordinacién Nacional de Arqueologia del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City. Fournier, Patricia, and Rocio Vargas-Sanders In press_En busca de los “duefios del silencio”: Cosmovision y ADN antiguo de las poblaciones Otomies epiclasicas de la regién de Tula. Revista de Estudios Otopames 3. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Auténoma de México. Gerhard, Peter 1986 Geografia histérica de la Nueva Espafi versidad Nacional Autonoma de México. Hicks, Frederic 1992 Subject States and Tribute Provinces: The Aztec Empire in the Northern Valley of Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 1: 1-10. Johnson, Kirsten 1982 Resourse-use Knowledge among the Otomi Indians of the Mezquital, México. In National Geographic Society Research Reports, vol. 14. P.H, Oehser, J. S. Lea, and N. L. Powars, eds. Pp. 315-24. Washington, pe: National Geographic Society. Konrad, Herman W. 1989 Una hacienda de los Jesuitas en el México colonial: Santa Lucfa, 1576- 1767. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Econémica. 519-1821. Mexico City: Uni- Lanks, H.C. 1938 Otomf Indians of the Mezquital Valley, Hidalgo. Economic Geography 24: 184-94. Libro de las tasaciones de los pueblos de la Nueva Espafia 1952 Mexico City: Archivo General de la Nacion. Lépez, Fernando, Patricia Fournier, and Clara Paz 1988 Contextos arqueolégicos y contextos momento: El caso de la alfareria Otom{ del Valle del Mezquital. Boletin de Antropologia Americana 18: 99-131.Haciendas, Ranchos, and the Otomi Way of Life 67 Malvido, Elsa, and Miguel Angel Cuenya 1993 Introduccién. In Demografia histérica de México, siglo XVI-XIX. Elsa Malvido and M. A. Cuenya, eds. Pp. 7-25. Mexico City: Antologias Universitarias, Instituto Mora-Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana. Melville, Elinor G. K. 1990 Environmental and Social Change in the Valle del Mezquital, Mexico. Comparative Studies in Society and History 1: 24-53. 1994 A Plague of Sheep: Environmental Consequences of the Conquest of Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mendizabal, Miguel Othén de 1947 Evolucién econémica y social del Valle del Mezquital. In Obras com- pletas. Vol. 16, pp. 7-258. Mexico City: Talleres Graficos de la Nacion. Moreno Toscano, Alejandra 1976 Elsiglo de la conquista. In Historia general de México. Vol. 2, pp. 1-81. Mexico City: Colegio de México. Ortiz de Montellano, Bernardo R. 1990 Aztec Medicine, Health, and Nutrition. New Brunswick, ny: Rutgers University Press. Ortiz Peralta, Rina 1993 _ Inexistentes por decreto: Disposiciones legislativas sobre los pueblos de indios en el siglo XIX. El caso de Hidalgo. In Indio, nacién y comu- nidad en el México del siglo XIX. Antonio Escobar Ohmstede, coord. Pp. 153-69. Mexico City: Centre d’Etudes Mexicaines et Centraméri- caines/Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropo- logia Social. Parsons, Jeffrey R., and Mary H, Parsons 1990 Maguey Utilization in Highland Central Mexico. Anthropological Papers, No. 82. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del, ed. 1980 Cédice Mendocino. Mexico City: Editorial Innovacién. Quezada, Noemi 1976 El Valle del Mezquital en el siglo XVI. Anales de Antropologia 13: 185-97. Rubial, Antonio 1989 El Convento Agustino y la Sociedad Novohispana (1533-1630). Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Auténoma de México. Sahagiin, Fray Bernardino de 1989 Historia general de las cosas de Nueva Espafia. Mexico City: Direc- cién General de Publicaciones del Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. Simpson, Lesley B. 1952 Exploitation of Land in Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century. Ibero- americana 36. Berkeley: University of California Press. Soustelle, Jacques 1993 La familia Otomi-Pame del México central. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Econémica. Vetancurt, Agustin de 1971 [1698] Teatro mexicano: Descripcién breve de los sucesos ejemplares68 Patricia Fournier-Garcia and Lourdes Mondragon histéricos y religiosos del Nuevo Mundo de las Indias. Crénica de la Provincia del Santo Evangelio de México. Menologio Franciscano. Mexico City: Editorial Porrtia. Wobeser, Gisela von 1983 La formacién de la hacienda en la epoca colonial. Mexico City: Uni- yersidad Nacional Auténoma de México.Copyright © 2003 EBSCO Publishing